Quashing FIR Under S.353 IPC: Rajasthan High Court Declines to Cancel FIR Against University Students Accused of Attacking Former Professor Despite Settlement - 2025-04-08

Rajasthan HC Questions Retired Professor's Authority in Compromise Deal to Quash FIR Against Student

JAIPUR , RAJASTHAN – The Rajasthan High Court has cast serious doubt on the validity of a compromise agreement intended to quash a criminal case against a student, summoning a retired professor to explain his authority to settle the matter on behalf of the University of Rajasthan.

The single-judge bench of Justice SameerJain , while hearing a petition to quash an FIR, directed the retired professor, who was the original complainant, to appear in person and justify his capacity to enter into a compromise without the university's sanction.

Case Background

The matter originates from an FIR (No. 224/2024) registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur, against student petitioner Shubham Rewad. The FIR was lodged on June 20, 2024, by Harishankar Palsaniya , then a Professor and in-charge of the Disciplinary Authority at the University of Rajasthan.

The allegations stated that the petitioner had locked a gate of the Administrative Block and engaged in other disruptive activities on campus, leading to charges under Sections 143 (unlawful assembly) and 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The petitioner, Shubham Rewad, approached the High Court seeking to quash the FIR, presenting a compromise agreement he had reached with the complainant, Mr. Palsaniya .

Court's Scrutiny and University's Stand

Justice Jain , upon reviewing the case, identified a critical issue: the competency of the complainant to enter into a compromise on behalf of the University. The court noted, "it is noted that the complainant namely Harishankar Palsaniya would not be a competent authority to enter into any compromise on behalf of the University of Rajasthan."

To clarify the university's official stance, the court directed the Vice-Chancellor to appear via video conferencing. The Vice-Chancellor submitted that while the FIR was lodged under proper directions by Mr. Palsaniya as the disciplinary authority in-charge at the time, he had since retired.

Crucially, she informed the court that the compromise was entered into by Mr. Palsaniya in his personal capacity and "without permission of the Authority, as no sanction to enter in a compromise qua any such dispute is sanctioned by her/Vice Chancellor."

The Investigating Officer also confirmed to the court that an arrest has already been made in connection with the FIR.

Court's Order and Directions

Finding the compromise questionable, the High Court declined to quash the FIR at this stage. Instead, the court focused on the apparent procedural lapse and lack of authority. Justice Jain ordered:

"...this Court directs Harishankar Palsaniya to remain present in the Court on the next date of hearing to tender reasonable explanation qua the capacity or authority that he has availed to enter into the compromise, especially when there was no expressed or implied sanction of the Competent Authority i.e. Vice Chancellor of University of Rajasthan."

The court has scheduled the next hearing for April 22, 2025, and directed the concerned Station House Officer (SHO) to continue the investigation and submit a progress report. Furthermore, the court has barred the withdrawal of the petition without its explicit permission, ensuring the matter is scrutinized thoroughly.